News FDA bans red dye No. 3 from food and drinks in the U.S. (1 Viewer)

[athenaaa]

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has banned the use of red dye No. 3 in food and ingested drugs, more than 30 years after scientists discovered links to cancer in animals, the agency announced Wednesday.

A synthetic color additive made from petroleum and chemically known as erythrosine, red dye No. 3 is used to give foods and beverages a bright cherry-red color.


The move acts on a November 2022 petition submitted by multiple advocacy organizations and individuals, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Environmental Working Group, which cited links to cancer. The decision by the federal agency also follows in the footsteps of California, whose government banned the additive in October 2023.

Manufacturers using red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs have until January 15, 2027, and January 18, 2028, respectively, to reformulate their products, according to the FDA. Foods imported to the United States also must comply with the requirements.”

Source:
FDA bans red dye No. 3 from food and drinks in the U.S.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/article/us-fda-bans-use-of-red-no-3-food-dye/​

 

[Ahsoka]

Hold on, let me make sure I’m understanding right. If you’re using this dye in random food, you have until 2027 to get rid of a potential carcinogen, but if you’re using it for medication, you get longer? Seems unintuitive

 

[StirFriedPanda]

Hold on, let me make sure I’m understanding right. If you’re using this dye in random food, you have until 2027 to get rid of a potential carcinogen, but if you’re using it for medication, you get longer? Seems unintuitive

Typical US way of doing things. They'll also give out extensions for the next 20 years. 30 years if it's for medication.

 

[snsd2beg]

At least it’s finally banned. We’ll see how the implementation goes

 

[Ahsoka]

Typical US way of doing things. They'll also give out extensions for the next 20 years. 30 years if it's for medication.

Granted it seems like no evidence it’s ever caused anything resembling cancer in people ever. But it’s a very unnecessary thing anyways, so I’m not against its removal, especially if the behavior problems it can supposedly cause is true. And I am still confused why medical drugs get longer than food for replacing it. Only thing I can think of is maybe somewhere there’s a drug that actually needs it to work? But idk how likely that is

 

[StirFriedPanda]

Granted it seems like no evidence it’s ever caused anything resembling cancer in people ever. But it’s a very unnecessary thing anyways, so I’m not against its removal, especially if the behavior problems it can supposedly cause is true. And I am still confused why medical drugs get longer than food for replacing it. Only thing I can think of is maybe somewhere there’s a drug that actually needs it to work? But idk how likely that is

A drug working being dependent on a food coloring seems insane. It's more likely the company will say it will affect it so they don't have to spend the money to reformulate existing drugs. After all, companies don't care about you beyond their ability to extract your money. Especially when drugs and medicine are involved.

 

[Ahsoka]

A drug working being dependent on a food coloring seems insane. It's more likely the company will say it will affect it so they don't have to spend the money to reformulate existing drugs. After all, companies don't care about you beyond their ability to extract your money. Especially when drugs and medicine are involved.

Close enough, that’s a similar enough line of thinking i more so meant any case where the efficacy of the medicine is at all affected, whatever the case. Even if it’s totally doable with any tweak. Because in that case food is usually easier because this removal affects nothing other than visual, since there’s less they have to account for. But I won’t be at all surprised if they drag their feet when it comes to medications and make random excuses

 

[centen]

TBH, the States' approach to "it's probably okay until it definitely isn't" is kinda messed up. So this is one (teeny, tiny) step in the right direction.

 

[Kataphract]

Hold on, let me make sure I’m understanding right. If you’re using this dye in random food, you have until 2027 to get rid of a potential carcinogen, but if you’re using it for medication, you get longer? Seems unintuitive

Just gonna comment: the fact that food and drugs are not held up to the same standard means they have separate codes governing them and for them to match with each change, that means typical government bullshit kicks in and they might need to amend both "prescribed delays" one at a time (one hearing per). That and pharma companies have more political power than food companies.

 

[Ahsoka]

TBH, the States' approach to "it's probably okay until it definitely isn't" is kinda messed up. So this is one (teeny, tiny) step in the right direction.

To some level yes, but it’s not like there are no regulations in place as of now. Also, you do have to at some point decide that the chance of something being harmful is small enough to be ignored. Take coffee: it’s been around for 800 years and scientists still haven’t decided if it’s bad for you, good for you, or in between. If coffee isn’t certain, what’s left in our food supply? But for stuff as incredibly frivolous as dyes I think the US could stand to demand more proof from the companies that it’s probably not going to kill you. But at the same time that won’t be perfect either, because there have been cases where food science falls under bribery. So many ways to mess up here ig

 

[DaisySkies]

it's about damn time

 

[The_LastRomeo]

now ban yellow 5 and red 40